Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-11-12 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello Raphael, On Tue 02 Nov 2021 at 08:31AM +01, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 01 Nov 2021, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Of course we should be exploring the new avenues that you mention. But >> becoming more willing to break unstable/testing than we are at present >> might also be good for our

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-11-02 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Mon, 01 Nov 2021, Sean Whitton wrote: > Of course we should be exploring the new avenues that you mention. But > becoming more willing to break unstable/testing than we are at present > might also be good for our project. Maybe, maybe not. What are you basing your assertion on? From my

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-11-01 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Fri 29 Oct 2021 at 09:57AM +02, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I have sympathy with your reasoning and I can certainly relate to things > that we did 20 years ago, where we happily broke unstable after a release > but we have changed. > > Yes, on some aspects we have become more

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-29 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021, Clint Adams wrote: > > In any case, a message saying that which is deprecated when in fact > > `which` will stay around (but maintained in another packages) is not > > helpful. > > Tell me, what would be helpful? A coordinated take over of the binary with a proper transition

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-26 Thread Clint Adams
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 09:53:55PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > “It only exists if it’s in Debian.” > > SCNR. But this is relevant, here. > > [ overly harsh words deleted ] That's right, so we print a deprecation warning at the beginning of the development cycle to raise awareness of the

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-26 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Tue, 26 Oct 2021, Clint Adams wrote: > effort maintaining a utility which is superfluous given the > existence of alternatives which are preferred by people who care “It only exists if it’s in Debian.” SCNR. But this is relevant, here. [ overly harsh words deleted ] bye, //mirabilos --

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-26 Thread Clint Adams
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 12:46:43PM +0200, tito wrote: > It is possible to create a single command package if somebody > will maintain it ( e.g busybox-which) like it was done for busybox-syslogd. > tempfile is missing tough. If someone wants to do that, I suppose they can. On Tue, Oct 26, 2021

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-26 Thread Wookey
On 2021-10-24 19:08 +, Clint Adams wrote: > On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 02:33:44PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > > I think causing build failures is enough reason to say this. I don't > > suppose that mine is the only one. Yes those builds are buggy and > > should not do this, and we should make efforts

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-26 Thread tito
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 19:08:20 + Clint Adams wrote: > On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 05:56:17PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > No. You’re conflating “which ”, which indeed is mostly redundant > > with “command -v”, with “which -a ”, which is NOT otherwise > > available, and a very useful thing to

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-24 Thread Clint Adams
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 05:56:17PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > No. You’re conflating “which ”, which indeed is mostly redundant > with “command -v”, with “which -a ”, which is NOT otherwise > available, and a very useful thing to have, and one which (heh, pun > not intended) I pretty much

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-18 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Sat 16 Oct 2021 at 05:50AM GMT, Clint Adams wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 01:05:50PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >>The debianutils package must continue to provide the tempfile(1) >>program until a compatible utility is available in a package that is >>at least

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-17 Thread Felix Lechner
Hi, On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 1:45 AM Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > the lintian tag > possibly-insecure-handling-of-tmp-files-in-maintainer-script still > recommend "tempfile or mktemp". Lintian's last remaining reference to 'tempfile' was dropped. [1] The updated tag description is now live on

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-17 Thread James Cloos
> "CA" == Clint Adams writes: CA> However, I don't think that this is reasonable for tempfile(1) unless CA> someone is actually willing to package and maintain a tempfile(1). just saw this.. i got hit by the removal of tepfile(1); pv-grub-menu uses it in its postint script and its removal

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-16 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Sat, 16 Oct 2021, Clint Adams wrote: > It is my hope that update-shells will obsolete add-shell and remove-shell Huh, what’s update-shells? Hm, apparently something new in sid. Ouch. If you really wish for that, it’ll involve painful versioned Pre-Depends and a largish diff for backports :/

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-15 Thread Clint Adams
On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 10:37:25AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > I was under the impression that debianutils is (intended to be) > a Debian-specific package with no separate upstream existence. Does > it have releases other than "whatever is in unstable"? Is there an Yes, one of the many changes

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-11 Thread Sebastian Ramacher
Hi Simon On 2021-10-11 01:01:45 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 at 01:36:26 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > The release team has so far protected users of testing from the > > problem by blocking testing migration, but this is not a long-term > > solution. > > Adrian asked in

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-10 Thread Simon McVittie
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 at 01:36:26 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > The release team has so far protected users of testing from the > problem by blocking testing migration, but this is not a long-term > solution. Adrian asked in #994275 for changes in several topics to be reverted: - which(1)

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-10 Thread Simon McVittie
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 at 01:36:26 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > More specifically, I am asking the Technical Committee to decide that: I think this is really 5 separate (but related) requests, each of which we could either uphold or decline, separately. Do you agree? > 1. The "which" program must be

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-06 Thread Russ Allbery
Simon McVittie writes: > On Sun, 03 Oct 2021 at 22:09:31 +, Clint Adams wrote: >> The fact that 95% of my inbox consists of hatemail about the >> interactive usage of `which` suggests a failure at the latter. > I'm sorry you're receiving hatemail about this package, and that's not > OK, but

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-06 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 10:37:25AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Sun, 03 Oct 2021 at 22:09:31 +, Clint Adams wrote: > > The package description uses the phrases "specific to Debian" and > > "installation scripts of Debian packages". The fact that > > debianutils is used on non-deb

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-06 Thread Simon McVittie
On Sun, 03 Oct 2021 at 22:09:31 +, Clint Adams wrote: > The package description uses the phrases "specific to Debian" and > "installation scripts of Debian packages". The fact that > debianutils is used on non-deb operating systems suggests a failure > at the former. Given its package

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-03 Thread Clint Adams
On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 11:31:41AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > This seems a good opportunity to ask what I think is a key question here: > what do you consider debianutils' mission to be? The package description uses the phrases "specific to Debian" and "installation scripts of Debian

Re: Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-09-25 Thread Wookey
On 2021-09-15 01:36 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > This is a request to override the maintainer of debianutils on several > changes that were done to the package in unstable after the release of > bullseye. ... > 2. The "which" program must not print any deprecation warnings. > > The deprecation

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-09-25 Thread Simon McVittie
On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 at 02:22:44 +, Clint Adams wrote: > * debianutils gets closer to achieving its mission, by having >one fewer irrelevant utility that does not belong This seems a good opportunity to ask what I think is a key question here: what do you consider debianutils' mission to

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-09-24 Thread Clint Adams
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 03:00:59PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > I thought what you wanted was to drop cjwatson-which, either in favour > of no which in Debian at all, or the option to install GNU or BSD which. > > However, you have now suggested that someone could package > cjwatson-which in

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-09-24 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello Clint, On Fri 24 Sep 2021 at 12:52PM GMT, Clint Adams wrote: > What I want is for GNU which to stop languishing in NEW, for the dozen > people who keep complaining that FreeBSD which is better and some other > volunteer should package FreeBSD which to actually spend the 15 minutes > to do

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-09-24 Thread Clint Adams
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 09:26:19AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Talking about "which", it might be good to get an explanation from the > maintainer what he wants, and why, and then discuss based on that. What I want is for GNU which to stop languishing in NEW, for the dozen people who keep

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-09-24 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 10:44:06AM +0200, Ansgar wrote: > On Fri, 2021-09-24 at 09:26 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > In my opinion, an amicable middle-ground proposal would be that the > > debianutils maintainer completely removes "which" from debianutils, > > and assuming the sysvinit-utils

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-09-24 Thread Ansgar
On Fri, 2021-09-24 at 09:26 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > In my opinion, an amicable middle-ground proposal would be that the > debianutils maintainer completely removes "which" from debianutils, > and assuming the sysvinit-utils maintainers agree, that they adopt > both the existing "which" and

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-09-24 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, Adrian Bunk wrote: > and assuming the sysvinit-utils maintainers agree, that they adopt > both the existing "which" and (at least temporarily) "tempfile". Independent of which “which” is to be adopted, I ask for this “which” to be one that *does* support “which -a”, which is

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-09-24 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 03:02:57PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello Adrian, > > On Wed 15 Sep 2021 at 01:36AM +03, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > Package: tech-ctte > > Severity: normal > > > > This is a request to override the maintainer of debianutils on several > > changes that were done to the

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-09-16 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Thu 16 Sep 2021 at 03:02PM -07, Sean Whitton wrote: > The TC can't do detailed design work, so without such a proposal on the > table, we're left deciding between a complete reversion and doing > nothing at all. It would be good to have more options. This isn't quite right -- we

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-09-16 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello Adrian, On Wed 15 Sep 2021 at 01:36AM +03, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Package: tech-ctte > Severity: normal > > This is a request to override the maintainer of debianutils on several > changes that were done to the package in unstable after the release of > bullseye. > > > More specifically, I

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-09-16 Thread Clint Adams
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 01:36:26AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > This is a request to override the maintainer of debianutils on several > changes that were done to the package in unstable after the release of > bullseye. There is quite a lot in here and I disagree with most of it except for the

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-09-15 Thread Helmut Grohne
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 12:41:31PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Are you arguing for a transition that makes "which" non-essential, > or are you arguing for a transition that would remove "which" from > Debian? Irrespective of the technical arguments for keeping or removing which, I think that

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-09-15 Thread Simon McVittie
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 at 01:36:26 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > 5. Programs in debianutils must not be moved to /usr unless there is >project-wide consensus on packages doing such a move, and premature >moving must be reverted. This part touches on an issue we are looking at in parallel to

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-09-15 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 09:20:34AM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 01:36:26AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: >... > > 1. The "which" program must be provided by an essential package. > > This request seems overzealous to me. Banning the shrinking of essential > would set a bad

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-09-15 Thread Helmut Grohne
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 01:36:26AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > This is a request to override the maintainer of debianutils on several > changes that were done to the package in unstable after the release of > bullseye. As someone being involved with debianutils lately (via DPKG_ROOT), I feel the

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-09-14 Thread Adrian Bunk
Package: tech-ctte Severity: normal This is a request to override the maintainer of debianutils on several changes that were done to the package in unstable after the release of bullseye. More specifically, I am asking the Technical Committee to decide that: 1. The "which" program must be